What about the candidates who seriously could be POTUS?

[aspberger]

There seems to be a Star Trek convention atmosphere around here at times. Instead of everyone picking their favorite Star Trek character, they push candidates that have virtually no chance of winning the WH.

Can we focus on serious, credible candidates and not just a constant rehash of fantasy candidates? Come on guys, unless we unify around a WINNABLE candidate, we are going to become more marginalized.

[Placebo]

1. Agreed.

*whisper* Hillary '08 :)

[Caleb]

30. It's going to be fun watching

the Republican's heads explode as President Hillary Clinton takes the oath of office along side First Gentleman Bill Clinton!

[Placebo]

42. Yes it will be!

Presidents Clinton 42 & 44 :patriot:

[cornermouse]

2. Define fantasy candidate, winnable candidate, and serious

credible candidate. Then take cover. :hide:

[Raiden]

3. Easy

Fantasy candidate - Dennis Kucinich

A great guy, but a guy who lacks charisma and isn't photogenic. It's deplorable, but someone like that will never win the presidency in America again. Besides, Dennis is doing good stuff in Congress, we can't afford to lose his leadership in the House. Especially when we are trying to take Congress back.


Winnable candidate - Hillary Clinton

Shameless corporatist; but if she gets the nomination, I'll vote for her; and she could probably win. We could do better though.


Serious, credible candidate - Wesley Clark

This guy is a winner. Plain and simple. Have you guys read his recent interview regarding the war; basically he says "we need more than resolve, we need a plan!" This guy IS the real deal, and I am confident that he can turn some red states.

[bowens43]

5. I disagree on two out of three.

You're right about Kucinich. He would be excellent but could never win.

Hillary can't win. She is quite possibly the most hated Democrat in America. There is nothing that the Republicans would like more then to see Hillary run. She's damaged goods.

Clark has no credibility, no relevant experience, no credentials as Democrat and he has the huge negative of a 30 year military career. And as we all saw in the 2004 primaries, Democrats just don't like the guy.

[Raiden]

6. I don't know - I can't think of anyone with more name recognition

than Hillary

[enough already]

36. Name recognition cuts both ways

She can't win. I want nothing to do with her.

[bvar22]

39. Charlie Manson has "name recognition"!

*

On Edit:
I originally used "Adolf Hitler" and "Benedict Arnold" in the first draft of the post,
but I DO respect Hillary for her courage and grace under fire during her 8 years in the White House.
I still think she has Class.

Her nomination would DESTROY what is left of the Democratic Party.

[iwantmycountryback]

13. A 30 year military career is... negative?

What planet are you from? I think being an Army General qualifies as "relevant experience." Eisenhower was never elected to anything either before he became President. Clark never had a chance to gain any momentum. Now that people know him he is going to be a top candidate. My personal favorite is Russ Feingold, a true man of the people who does what he thinks is right and doesn't back down to anybody. Clark is my second choice, and I think a Feingold/Clark or Clark/Feingold ticket would be terrific.

[SonofMass]

17. Eisenhower was a national hero who could have won as

a democrat or a republican. He could have won as an independent, too. Clark ins't in that class.

[LandOLincoln]

41. No, he isn't, but then we haven't had a war like WWII since

then, now have we?

Would you prefer to wait for such a war, or would you prefer to go with a man who has at least as much credibility as a world leader as Eisenhower, minus the horrendous world war that made Eisenhower's name?

Your choice...

[Jai4WKC08]

43. Clark's war wasn't in the same "class" as Ike's

So his current notariety among the American people isn't either.

But the scope of Clark's responsibilities as SACEUR was at least as broad as Eisenhower's, and so was the difficulty in keeping a far more diverse and fragmented alliance together. And who could argue that Clark doesn't have it all over Ike as far as intelligence, energy, charisma, and every other conceivable qualification for the job. That was the bowens' oft-repeated and ever-ridiculous slam, after all... that Clark has no experience "relevant" to the office?

[SonofMass]

46. >And who could argue that Clark doesn't have it all over Ike

I guess I could.

I can't believe that people would argue that Clark's SACEUR experience was even close to what Ike was up against. There wasn't even a ground war. It was just us bombing a tiny country safely from high altitude. I'm sure that fighting the nazi's while keeping the USSR, France, Britain etc. on board was just a cup of tea compared to SACEUR. Not to mention that Ike won 2 presidential elections, had to deal with Korea and the cold war (nuclear annihilation). Clark won a democratic primary in a state where everyone votes in the republican primary. Everywhere else he was drubbed. I mean, if you want to argue the guy's case (Clark, that is) you won't win many points with a comparison that is such a huge s-t-r-e-c-h. Come on.

[Jai4WKC08]

47. Nice... trimming my sentence, and losing its meaning completely

I specifically said "all over Ike in intelligence, energy, charisma, and every other conceivable qualification for the job."

Hey, I like Ike (gee, that's catchy). I'll grant you he was damned intelligent, altho I personally think Clark is more so, and doubtlessly better educated. But energy? Ike was never known for doing much personally during his presidency, but rather letting events unfold and at most applying influence here and there, especially during his second term. Charisma? As loved and respected as Ike was, all well deserved, he wouldn't have stood a chance if he'd had to campaign on TV. Or in today's dirty political climate--does the name Kay Summersby mean anything to you?

As for the rest of your post... I'll ignore your rather blatant errors about Ike's presidency or Clark's primary record. The main point is that there's no argument that WWII was the bigger war effort, and I said as much in my post. Altho you would do well not to underestimate the military complexity of the Kosovo air operation, or the role that ground forces played in its resolution, for all that they were never employed.

But I was talking about the scope of responsibility, and primarily in the diplomatic/political sphere. Eisenhower commanded the military of one theater, in an alliance of three principle partners, where the political piece was almost completely handled by the political leaders. He never really had to interface much with Roosevelt (Marshal did that), Churchill or Stalin. Nor was there any question that every member of the alliance, big three or otherwise, was in it for the duration. There was complete unity of command for Ike, and clear, unquestioned support from his superiors. They had no other choice.

Clark on the other hand had to hold together a 19 member nation alliance in against much complex political backdrop, partly because of Clinton's domestic troubles, partly because of resistance on the Hill and within the Pentagon. Clark was on the ground with every single head of state, working closely with NATO Sec General Solana. A number of those governments might have folded if the war had gone the wrong way, and their leaders knew it. And there were non-NATO nations involved in the operation, some precisely because they wanted to become NATO members, others concerned with NATO hegemony. Clark had to deal with all of that, while running a military operation, AND while commanding an organization that comprised some 160,000 American families spread out over 93 nations, with all the requirements for health care, education, housing, infrastructure... things Ike never had to deal with.

I'm not trying to denigrate what Eisenhower accomplished. It was enormous, and he was a great man, a great American hero, and a more than adequate President. But it's a different world now, militarily and politically, than it was in 1945. Or 1952.

[SonofMass]

55. It's like compaping a firecracker to a 10 megaton hydrogen bomb.

[AntiCoup2K4]

20. Definition of a fantasy candidate

One whose "qualification" is the fact that her husband used to have the job.

[LTRS]

24. Agreed with you on Hillary

Disagree on Clark. He was a messaging disaster, worse than Kerry, which is really saying something. He couldn't even keep straight on messaging about the issue he knows best -- war and the military. If he couldn't do that then how can he deal with a host of issues he doesn't know well at all?

How quickly we forget.

[lojasmo]

45. Clinton will NEVER win the generals....

I sure won't vote for her.

[aspberger]

4. come on

For starters, no 4 star generals. Do you think all the Woody Guthrie liberals are going to leave the commune to vote for a leader of professional killers?

Also, someone with a bad wig and endorsed by most of the cast of Hollywood Squares ain't going anywhere. We need someone more real.

[union_maid]

7. I'm a Woody Guthrie Liberal

I'd vote for the General. I don't know who Woody would have picked. Clark's a lot closer to the people that Woody was interested in than most of the others, though. Woody hated fascists and bankers, not soldiers.

[ulysses]

9. LOL!

Do you think all the Woody Guthrie liberals are going to leave the commune...

Insightful. :eyes:

[bvar22]

8. I thought the OP was talking about Hillary

and her loyal pilgrims.

[Dogmudgeon]

10. This is dumb

Nothing personal against any of you, or any of the candidates. I base my opinion on this one thing: Why telegraph our electoral strategy to our opponents? That's what's dumb about it.

The Democratic Party has had an embarrassment of riches since the 1990s. The Republicans have few or no potential candidates that won't be identified as maniacs, and we Democrats have upwards of a dozen -- or more.

Even "Joementum" is a far sight better than what the GOP has to offer.

Our energies would presently be best spent on doing groundwork and formulating strategy and tactics. There is a serious need for new approaches to winning hearts, minds, and elections. Rather than endeavoring to "speak truth to power", we should speak the truth and win the power.

It is WE who should set the tone for the election and establish the agenda. With anything less than this, we lose.

--p!

[aspberger]

11. GOOD POST but

we need to get real about one thing-WINNING THE WH BACK. To posit rabble-rousing candidates as possible next POTUS is ludicrous, laughable, and lamentable.

We are smart. We can find a candidate who can win!

[Dogmudgeon]

12. Yes, indeed!

Electoral politics goes hand-in-hand with grassroots changes in political attitudes. We need not concern ourselves with political styles, because the candidates themselves will reflect the changes in their constituents and supporters.

Rabble-rousing is as rabble-rousing does. For those who are reading that as Howard Dean, I don't consider him a rabble-rouser any more than I consider, say, Joe Lieberman a Republican. But as to whether he would make a winning candidate remains to be seen. Meanwhile, he's doing a good job as the head of the DNC and his supporters are not ignoring the Big Picture.

I'm optimistic in the long run; I think we'll have at least five excellent candidates from which to choose in the 2008 primaries, while the GOP will only have Bush's heir-apparent. Next year may be "dicey", but I think it will be the last tough election we will face for a long time.

But we must win the White House -- and as much of the Legislature as possible. As a wiser wonk than I once said, "You can't govern if you don't win."

--p!

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. Why don't we wait until some actually announces that they are running?

So far not one candidated has even opened up an exploratory committee, let alone announced that they are running.

[Nye Bevan]

51. Because many people find this interesting

myself included. I had never heard of a guy named Brian Schweitzer until I participated in this thread, now I see that he is possibly one of the Democratic party's bright stars of the future, and I certainly plan on learning more about him.

I agree that it is kind of early days to be having this sort of discussion-- except with other political junkies on a political discussion board.

[Nye Bevan]

15. Latest odds on Dem nominee from Tradesports.com:

Hillary Clinton 44%
Mark Warner 11%
Joe Biden 10%
Evan Bayh 8%
Al Gore 6%
John Edwards 5%
Bill Richardson 4%
John Kerry 4%
Jon Corzine 2%
Tom Vilsack 2%
Barack Obama 2%
Wesley Clark 2%
Ed Rendell 2%

Others listed with lower odds: Howard Dean, Phil Breseden, Russ Feingold, Colin Powell, Pat Leahy, Chris Dodd, Harold Ford, Joe Lieberman, Brian Schweitzer, Mike Easley (I haven't heard of these last two)

It would be great to see some more discussion of candidates like Warner and Biden, along with the (usually quite heated) comments on Hillary that are common here.

[NoPasaran]

16. Brian Schweitzer is the new governor of Montana

Who surprised a lot of people by winning in a very red state. I think he's a person to watch, but has about as good a shot at the 2008 nomination as I do.

[mrgorth]

18. This is who we should watch

We ignore him at our own peril. I am NOT voting for Hillary.

[NoPasaran]

25. Fear not, I'm not ignoring HoHo

I just assume that pretty much everyone around here knows who he is.

[mrgorth]

27. I didn't mean Dean

he's in my sig. I meant Brian Schweitzer.

[UrbScotty]

53. He has called the idea of a 2008 run "kooky." (nt)

[FrenchieCat]

22. Oooh, Thanks for that link!

I better vote for who the odds are favoring, and not who I have researched and favor! Wonder how they come up with those odds. You think it has to do with who the corporate media pushes, discuss, make evident with name recognition and so the scientific polls numbers reflect that?

Boy, oh Boy....how exciting! Hillary, Warner and Biden! Geeze, I can't wait. :sarcasm:

[SonofMass]

56. They come up with the odds by the way the bet money is coming

in. It's basically what the bettors think. They change the odds to be sure that they have evry side covered so as not to lose money.

[LittleClarkie]

33. I'm offended that Biden is rated to high

You have GOT to be kidding.

[Texas_Kat]

19. I think the Democratic Party's grassroots are capable

of deciding between 'serious, credible candidates' .

I've seen absolutely no indication that your favorite candidate either knows or cares what the grassroots thinks.

Except that maybe we should just shut up and go away -- and leave it to the professional power brokers to make those decision for us.

Sound familiar?

[CWebster]

21. you mean...like Hillary?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

34. Hmm...

ya think? ;)

[ginnyinWI]

23. Whatever we do, we should promote the unity of the party

There is a big difference between the positive approach, talking up candidates you really think would be great, and the negative, which is trashing every other Dem than the one you particularly like. It is especially bad when people use RW talking points to do it, too.

We have DLC, liberal and progressive elements in the Democratic party, and we need every one of them to win a victory over the GOP. So please let's all work together against our true opponents.

[kan2005]

26. First Post

I am new here and really love the discussions that you guys are having. The Democrats need to win the WH in 2008. I agree that a solid candidate is needed. I feel that Hillary Rodham Clinton is too divisive to win (sorry). I would like to see a moderate ticket like WARNER/BAYH, BAYH/RICHARDSON or VILSACK/BAYH. I really liked Howard Dean in '04 but he like Feingold is a party shaper rather than leader. I was heartbroken when John Kerry was not elected in 2004. I would like to see him run again if possible.

[ludwigb]

37. Good Post--Welcome to DU

I like Warner as well, though my candidate of preference remains Al Gore. Unfortunately he seems to be out of the running.

[best left blank]

28. Obama.

Seriously, he strikes me as somebody who could really get the vote out.

[politicasista]

29. We need to take care of 2006

If we don't get Congress back, 2008 will not matter.

[LWolf]

31. Deja Vu

The issues got buried in the '04 primaries under a tidal wave of "Electable" vs "Not electable."

So the majority of Democratic voters, in their infinite wisdom, went along with the "electability over issues" plan, and nominated the more mainstream, supposedly "electable" Kerry.

GWB is POTUS today.

I'll stick with the issues, thanks. Maybe a strong focus on issues would actually swing more votes our way.

[kenny blankenship]

32. Agreed: no more talk about Hillary running!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

35. There's only two things...

I don't like on political message boards.

Folks calling for unity behind someone when the election cyle hasn't even fucking begun.

And folks telling me to zippit when serious discussion about candidates and their issues is needed.

We've got a l-o-n-g road ahead of us before 2008 here -- plenty of time for indepth examination and evaluation of each and every potential Democratic candidate.

I hope you can manage to deal with that, otherwise it's going to be a hard few years for you. :)

[aspberger]

44. what about momentum

and creating an aura of invincibility? The voting swingers need that.

Also we can choose to pick a candidate before the time the election cycle begins, in that way the party and the general public can be conditioned to the idea of President x. We can expand our choices beyond the fruitless march of the recent past.

[rniel]

38. Ok Hillary!!

We'll get right on it.

[aspberger]

48. President Hillary Clinton

respect the hope and possibilities, please.

[Catchawave]

40. Who thought Hackett was winnable.....

..until about two days before OH-02 ?

Well, he didn't win, but for a full glorious week, we were all from OHIO, rah-rah ! And that felt good. We need to keep that momentum going...locally and nationally....here, on DU.

[goodhue]

49. Kucinich!

http://www.kucinich.us/

[aspberger]

50. Our world isn't good enough for Kucinich

He is a moral compass, not a sin-hardened candidate.

[martymar64]

52. I'm betting on a dark house

I like Schweitzer or RFK Jr.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.